DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on May 12, 2025. Claims 1-20 were presented and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on May 12, 2025, are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US PGPUB No. US 20210326167 A1), hereinafter, Yang.
Regarding claim 1:
Yang teaches:
A method for deploying a virtualized network function (VNF) performed by a communication device, comprising (Fig. 3):
obtaining a first virtualized network function descriptor (VNFD) template, wherein the first VNFD template is for deploying a deployment unit of a first VNF, and comprises a plurality of key/value pairs including a first key/value pair (paragraph 0075 discloses obtaining a VNFD for deploying a container service instance (deployment unit) of a VNF as stated, “The NFVO or the VNFM obtains deployment information of a container service instance from a VNFD corresponding to a VNF that needs to be instantiated.” );
obtaining a first set of values formed of values of the plurality of key/value pairs, wherein a value of the first key/value pair indicates that the first key/value pair does not function on deployment of the deployment unit of the first VNF (paragraph 0066 discloses the VNFD description include key value pair. Paragraphs 0077 and 0078 disclose name or ID of the container service instance based on the key value of the VNFD. Paragraph 0079 discloses the container service instance is not deployable); and
sending a first request message to a container as a service (CaaS) manager based on the first VNFD template and the first set of values, wherein the first request message requests to deploy the deployment unit of the first VNF on a node that meets the first VNFD template and the first set of values (paragraph 0079 discloses sending message for physical server or virtual machine for deploying the container service instance of the VNF as stated, “Optionally, if the selected CaaS cluster does not have sufficient resources, and the NFVO or the VNFM has a capability of applying for a CaaS cluster resource from a VIM, the NFVO or the VNFM may apply for a physical server or a virtual machine resource from the VIM, and add the physical server or the virtual machine resource to a CaaS manager of the corresponding CaaS cluster for capacity expansion.”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein the value of the first key/value pair is a value of a KEY parameter in the first key/value pair (paragraph 0068 discloses key value pair in name of cluster).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein the value of the first key/value pair is a value of a VALUE parameter in the first key/value pair (paragraph 0068 discloses key value pair in name of cluster).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein the value of the first key/value pair is a value of one of a plurality of VALUE parameters in the first key/value pair (paragraph 0068 discloses key value pair include multiple values for cluster).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein to request to deploy the deployment unit of the first VNF on the node that meets the first VNFD template and the first set of values, the first request message requests to re-deploy the deployment unit of the first VNF on the node that meets the first VNFD template and the first set of values, or the first request message requests to deploy deployment units of the first VNF on the node that meets the first VNFD template and the first set of values (paragraph 0079 discloses sending message for physical server or virtual machine for deploying the container service instance of the VNF as per the key value pair of VNFD).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards a communication apparatus performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a communication apparatus performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a communication apparatus performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a communication apparatus performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a communication apparatus performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to claims 4 and 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Mukherjee et al. (US Patent No. US 11687355 B1), hereinafter, Mukherjee.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Yang does not teach wherein the deployment unit is a point of deployment (Pod), or the deployment unit is a virtual machine (VM).
Mukherjee teaches wherein the deployment unit is a point of deployment (Pod), or the deployment unit is a virtual machine (VM) (Col. 3, lines 46-47, discloses VNF deployment on a POD as stated, “At 168, after VNF validation, the VNF installation is planned for a specific POD; in some cases, this may be several VNFs together”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teaching of Mukherjee about POD. One would be motivated to do that since POD can support different types of network function and the process can be automated (see the background section of Mukherjee).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 12, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights